Medal of Honor (2010)

[tingkagol]

This topic was closed, so I created a new one.

I hope the PC version for this will sell at around 1.3k like most EA games. I remember BFBC2 was priced at 1.3k at the time of its release.

Accdg to Datablitz their stocks will arrive on Friday/Saturday.

[juan_carlos]

i was excited for this game until i read the reviews. very bad. turned out all the hype was just that, hype.

"As it stands, Medal of Honor is possibly the blandest and most forgettable game we’ve played this year – a result of it arriving too late to an over saturated genre and bringing nothing new to the table." bit-tech.net

"MoH’s inventive and thoughtful sections are undermined by its desire to mimic other games it just can’t beat." pcgamer

[sharkey360]

IGN gave Medal of Honor a 6/10 score in its review.

Medal of Honor's real problem may be Danger Close's inability to commit to a particular direction for the game. Swinging wildly between the horrors and danger of war and unrealistic action movie moments and hampered by a surplus of boring scripted sequences, not even DICE's talented multiplayer designers are able to elevate Medal of Honor to something memorable. Combined with Danger Close's fixation on delivering an experience about a war that Americans are deeply ambivalent about, and multiplayer that remains likely to incite controversy about its content after players have moved on to deeper, more engaging multiplayer options, Medal of Honor is one of the bigger disappointments of 2010.

Medal of Honor Review - PlayStation 3 Review at IGN

[personalmgt]

Don't let the reviews give you a yay or nay. Most of things that the reviewers called out were present in Call of Duty.

I'd be not suprised if Black Ops got a score greater than MoH. It's CoD, and Activision after all (see: Bobby Kotick).

[sharkey360]

Watch this video review of MOH

Medal Of Honor Video Game, Review HD | Video Clip | Game Trailers & Videos | GameTrailers.com

[juan_carlos]

Don't let the reviews give you a yay or nay. Most of things that the reviewers called out were present in Call of Duty.

I'd be not suprised if Black Ops got a score greater than MoH. It's CoD, and Activision after all (see: Bobby Kotick).

the thing with reviews is they tend to be right. now if the majority of reviewers say the same thing i tend to believe them. i want to make sure i get my moneys worth before buying something at full price. i dont multiplay so i need a game with an engaging and interesting SP campaign. what dissapoints is the fact that they overhyped the game in the previews and commercials, when u train people for months and months to expect something awesome and then dont deliver, thats major fail for me. all this is MHO of course

[kenites]

Hala bati diay ni
nagpareserve na ra ba ko...

[personalmgt]

the thing with reviews is they tend to be right. now if the majority of reviewers say the same thing i tend to believe them.

Alright, this is pretty ironic.

If majority of the reviewers say that the SP is too short, story is crap, the graphics were bullcrap, gameplay was a glitchfest, then maybe yes. But if they are the same reviewers who gave MW2 a near-perfect score even if MW2 had all of those that I mentioned. How does it justify to give MoH a 6.5 when MoH has nothing more but a CoD clone? If reviewers really want to prove their reviews, they have to be objective and stop dipping their foot on CoD mud. All reviews that I've been reading lately has been doing comparisons only to CoD.

You say that reviews tell if its worth your money, I don't think thats a good idea to follow because you're really missing a lot of things. Games are not trophies or entitlements, they're entertainment.

Familiar with the game Darkest of Days? Never heard of it right? It was released last year and it didn't really get good reviews and its infamous attempt to go mainstream with AAA titles. I believe its even below the scores of MoH. But the concept of shooting Nazis, Spartans and Civil War era soldiers with your Futuristic Rocket Launchers and Flechette Guns was awesome that I really had fun with it. Worth every penny spent even with the terrible reviews.

I'm not defending MoH here and I don't even have faith on that game considering that DICE really botched up some parts of BF:BC2. But even if they screwed some stuff up, it was still a really fun game to play. Not to mention I still play it up to this day with the community dwindling down

[eirawn]

Sakto ra sad nga wla ko ni pre order. Better stick to my BF: BC2 na lang.

[juan_carlos]

Alright, this is pretty ironic.

If majority of the reviewers say that the SP is too short, story is crap, the graphics were bullcrap, gameplay was a glitchfest, then maybe yes. But if they are the same reviewers who gave MW2 a near-perfect score even if MW2 had all of those that I mentioned. How does it justify to give MoH a 6.5 when MoH has nothing more but a CoD clone? If reviewers really want to prove their reviews, they have to be objective and stop dipping their foot on CoD mud. All reviews that I've been reading lately has been doing comparisons only to CoD.

You say that reviews tell if its worth your money, I don't think thats a good idea to follow because you're really missing a lot of things. Games are not trophies or entitlements, they're entertainment.

Familiar with the game Darkest of Days? Never heard of it right? It was released last year and it didn't really get good reviews and its infamous attempt to go mainstream with AAA titles. I believe its even below the scores of MoH. But the concept of shooting Nazis, Spartans and Civil War era soldiers with your Futuristic Rocket Launchers and Flechette Guns was awesome that I really had fun with it. Worth every penny spent even with the terrible reviews.

I'm not defending MoH here and I don't even have faith on that game considering that DICE really botched up some parts of BF:BC2. But even if they screwed some stuff up, it was still a really fun game to play. Not to mention I still play it up to this day with the community dwindling down

*sigh i really did not want to argue but here goes... the reason they gave mwf2 a good score is because it built on the successes of mwf and improved on it. for the record mwf and mwf2 had great graphics and never glitched on me, also the story was awesome and caused me to become invested in the characters (singleplayer only i dont multiplay) mwf did a lot of things right. it was fresh and brought new things when it came out. and even if the sp was not too long, no one will argue that the story was not engaging.

i also find it ironic that you yourself proved my point when u stated that moh is a cod clone. that is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM reviewers are complaining about. and that is exactly why they didn't give it a high score. it plays like a clone. it has been several years since mwf. mwf2 has come and passed and so has bfc2. moh was supposed to be a reboot for the moh series and they were expecting it to be better than it was because the people behind moh caused them to expect more with all their hype. instead we get the same old same old, and not executed well at that (according to most reviewers).

also for the record i do know of darkest of days and it is in my amazon wishlist i have a bunch of beloved games that are not considered mainstream. review systems are far from perfect because of the subjective nature of personal preferences, but even so they still provide a good guide for the average consumer. thats why i always look at the majority of reviews and scrutinize the cons mentioned by the reviewers. if the cons seem to be quirks then i will overlook that but if the prevalent cons are fundamental like story, game mechanics and gameplay then i take notice.

tl:dr: reviewers gave moh low scores because it feels like a poorly executed cod clone and did not fulfill the expectations marketing promised.